Date post: | 13-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | hilary-george |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Governmental Research Association
Annual Conference
July 27, 2009
Washington DC
August is not too late for meeting with everyone. However, it would be nice to have the location firmed up to be included in all promotional materials before then. I will call the LeMoyne woman directly and see what our options are. Sound ok?
Topics and PresentersFive Fallacies About
Corrections and Public Safety in America
The Decision to Invest in Corrections: Michigan Case Study
The Local Incarceration Effect: Investing More Wisely in New York
Wrap Up and Discussion
Adam Gelb, Pew Center on the States, Public Safety Performance Project [email protected]
Craig Thiel, Citizens Research Council of Michigan [email protected]
Donald Pryor, Center for Governmental Research [email protected]
Historical context – expanding use of incarceration and impacts on crime
Vantage point: state and local levelFiscal challenges provide new “lens”Public debate clouded by “myths”Fresh look at past decisions aided by new
research and data
Fallacy #1Police Determine the Crime
Rate
RealityPolice Are Important,
Corrections Plays a Huge Role
Fallacy #2The Crime Rate Drivesthe Incarceration Rate
RealityPolicy Choices are the
Primary Driver
Fallacy #3Prisons are Full of Low-level,
Non-violent Offenders
RealityMost are Serious Offenders,but Small % Can Save Big $
Fallacy #4Everything “Works,”
Nothing “Works”
RealityWell Targeted, Well Run Can
Cut Recidivism by Up to 30%
Fallacy #5Rational Crime Policy
Is Political Suicide
RealityIt’s Political Salvation!
The Decision to Invest in Corrections in Michigan: Where Has it Gotten Us?
Michigan Prison Population
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
Year
Num
ber o
f P
ris
oners
Substantial Growth Steady Growth
Stability
Behavioral, structural, and policy factors – not all equal in terms of their influence
Stable commitment rates + longer stays = pop. growth
Longer stays result of:1. Declining parole approval rates2. Returns to prison for technical violations
Significant discretion provided to Parole Board results in “re-sentencing”
Public policies not crime led to population growth in Michigan
Length of Stay Driving Population Increases in Michigan
Michigan, Great Lakes States, and US Average Length of Stay
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Mon
ths
Great Lakes AverageMichiganU.S. Less Michigan
Source: CRC Calculations, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Annual Releases
Growth was sustainable and desirable Michigan an outlier in regional comparisons Are we getting what we paid for? Prison spending effectively “crowding out” other areas Problem: Michigan no longer wealthy and coping with on-
going structural budget deficits
“Rebalance” state investment mix
Change will be driven by fiscal challenges
State solutions -->local problems
Immediate solutions – admin. & politically difficult
Will take time
Past attempts – failure to address state’s structural deficit deflected attention
Past attempts – little movement from established, predictable positions
A brokered solution: Council of State Gov’t Bi-partisan and across branches of gov’t Data driven Goal: maintain public safety through “reinvestment”
Real savings result from population reductions, but nothing off the table
Calls for change – business weighing inFocus on release
Parole Board expanded and appointed directly by Governor
Reduce number serving past min. sentence Still waiting for presumptive parole legislation Expand use of community release
Next steps: turn attention to “front” end Sentencing reforms - truth in sentencing
Mostly executive branch actions, legislature still a little leery about acting
Looking forward: budget decisions will be key
Political ConsiderationsHistorical Trends
Typical patterns of few days pretrial and often at least some sentenced jail time, typically with few alternatives to incarceration in place
Little research done on implications, and few incentives or resources to change
Financial Incentives to Build or ExpandNYS Commission of Correction
Historical push to build or expandRarely has pushed counties for other options
Jail admissions and daily census often increase even as crime and arrest patterns decline
Defendants often held several days for minor offenses and ultimately released safely; why not sooner?
Long waits for Pre-Sentence Investigations and sentencing dates; often non-jail sentences result
Few ATIs in place in many countiesOften increasing number of women incarcerated on
minor charges, with few alternatives in placeJudges, DA, defense attorneys, POs often unaware of
composite impact of decisions on jail population
Example: 60% of unsentenced cases in which bail set were set at $500 or less, typically for minor charges, most with no other holds
Many of these remained in jail an average of 12 days before being released
Unsentenced inmates grew by 51% from 2001 to 2005
Of those, >80% never sentenced to jail or prison on the charge they were held on
Example: 12% of jail sentences on convictions were for felony charges, vs. 22% for minor traffic offenses and violations
Typical felony cases took > 9 months to resolve; 3 of those months case languished in lower court prior to filing at felony court level
Almost 40% of case resolution elapsed time was spent between time verdict was reached and final sentencing; lengthy delays to conduct PSIs + 4 additional weeks until formal sentencing
Numerous issues related to case screening, case assignment and follow-through, case tracking, delays and dismissals in DA’s office affected length of time cases open and unnecessary jail time
Communication issues between DA, defense attorneys and police officers
Ineffective and outdated case monitoring in most criminal justice and program offices
Wide variation in ATI, court processing and sentencing practices across courts and judges
Once fully implemented, significant savings projected, depending on which of 3 options implemented: Close 2 or more jail units, estimated annual
savings of about $500,000 Use 2/3 of projected 60 cells saved per day to
board in prisoners from other counties or federal prisons, at $80/night: increased revenues of almost $1.2 million per year
Combination of the 2, closing 1 unit and boarding in 30 inmates/night: taxpayer benefit of > $1.1 million
Potential additional savings of several hundred thousand dollars per year from reduced overtime.
Average Daily Inmate Population reduced from 209 in 2006 to 172 in 2008 – without implementation of Electronic Home Monitoring, which expected to reduce population by an additional 20 or more beds per day
Jail overtime cut in half, from $858,ooo in 2006 to $410,000 in 2008
Full use of an array of pretrial release and sentencing alternatives in one county saved need for constructing two to three additional jail units/PODs otherwise needed to meet state classification standards
Avoided construction costs of $2.5 million to $3 million, plus any related debt service costs
Avoided operating costs of between $750,000 and $900,000 each year
Conduct comprehensive review of entire criminal justice system and its decision-making processes and timelines, policies and practices
Analyze jail population in depth, and the impact of various decisions at key points on who’s in jail for how long; understanding who makes what decisions, based on what information, key to reducing jail census and jail costs, both current and capital
Use data to educate key decision-makers on impact of their individual and collective decisions; review data periodically to ensure ongoing impact
New leadership in NYS Commission on Correction, with more focus on local perspectives and reduced imposition of top-down decisions
Opportunity to impact on CoC and how they make recommendations for individual counties. CGR and New York State Association of Counties beginning to work in collaboration with CoC and selected counties in partnership, based on comprehensive study of criminal justice practices in counties prior to making final decisions about future of local jails
Such partnership especially important in this economy, to help reduce taxpayer costs.